Update to MacOS 10.14 (Mojave) Problems printing and getting proper colors

[Kees Molenaar]

You'll get excellent B&W prints from a P800. Not worthwhile going to the trouble of dedicating an old 2880 to B&W only.

I'll keep that in mind, maybe someone is still willing to give some bucks for the 2880 in stead ;-)

[Garnick]

I went to 1.14.1 immediately, skipped 1.14.0.   
Since ages the printerdriver for Epson 2880  is supplied via Apple update, not via epson, checked versions though. latest is 9.0 (also for ages ). which is installed.

I'll try a reinstall nevertheless to see if the problem is solved. 

Kees

Hi again,

Just one more thing.  If you are going to reinstall the driver, please follow the steps I outlined previously, since that's the only way to be absolutely certain you have deleted all driver files before reinstalling the driver.

[Ferp]

You'll get excellent B&W prints from a P800. Not worthwhile going to the trouble of dedicating an old 2880 to B&W only.

This is OT for this thread, but it's worth observing that there are a number of monochrome-only printing systems available.  They're not for everyone, but plenty of people use them because they see benefits compared to OEM, even the P800.  Have you tried any of them Mark?

[Mark D Segal]

This is OT for this thread, but it's worth observing that there are a number of monochrome-only printing systems available.  They're not for everyone, but plenty of people use them because they see benefits compared to OEM, even the P800.  Have you tried any of them Mark?

The first question is whether it's practical to convert this particular 2010 printer model to monochrome - who's done it and what success have they had with it? I'd want to see evidence before recommending this. The second question before looking at anything else is the DMax you can achieve with a P800, especially in ABW mode - the answer to that one, as far as I'm concerned, is that I've seen none lower from anywhere. Looking visually and statistically at the tonal gradations it produces, they are superb. I think I've seen inkjet B&W prints made in every which way and I believe the P800 stands up well to all of it. So no, I have not tried converting a printer to third-party B&W ink systems. I know many people really love them, and that's fine, but speaking personally I don't see the point. That said, my mind is always open to obviously superior methods, but I'm not feeling compelled to invest in it as an experiment given what we have on the market today. It may be also worth considering a point recently brought to my attention by an industry professional, and sounds plausible - that when you have colour inks available to a B&W printing process, used with good ICC profiles they can help neutralize the effect of non-neutral papers in a way that B&W inks alone cannot do - perhaps useful if you put a high value on apparent neutrality through the tonal range.

[Kees Molenaar]

Hi again,

Just one more thing.  If you are going to reinstall the driver, please follow the steps I outlined previously, since that's the only way to be absolutely certain you have deleted all driver files before reinstalling the driver.

reinstalling the printer did the trick for me,   printing in 16 bit works just fine now.  Thanks!
Kees

[Ferp]

Taking Mark's post as a sequence of questions:

Yes, you can convert the R2880 to monochrome.  Plenty of people have done it.  Inkjetmall sell carts and inks and provide a turnkey system.  They're not the only suppliers.

Yes, you can get a higher dMax than the P800, if high dMax is your thing.  Inkjetmall recently released their new HD Photo Black and Ultra HD Matte Black inks that deliver significantly higher dMax than OEM.  They're intended for monochrome printing, although you could use them in a color OEM printer and reprofile.  I'll leave readers to check the higher dMax claims themselves.

It's true that some of the pure carbon monochrome systems that provide the most longevity are a long way from neutral, such as those advocated here from time to time by Paul Roark.  But if neutrality is your thing then the Piezography Pro inkset delivers a neutral tone and moreover allows fine tuning of neutral for the impact of different papers.  Again not the only neutral solution but the quickest one to point to.

The point of my previous question was not to suggest that you try one of these systems, but to check what your comment "Not worthwhile going to the trouble of dedicating an old 2880 to B&W only" was based on.  Speaking purely for myself, there are printing systems discussed on this forum that I'm envious of and others that I'm skeptical of, but I would hesitate to dismiss a system that I hadn't tried myself and hadn't done the research on.  The P800 is a great little printer with much to recommend it, but monochrome practitioners often look for more. 

This has drifted way OT, and to get it back on-topic I will report that the software that most of these third-party monochrome systems rely on - QuadToneRIP and Print Tool - seems to work under Mojave, with the exception that PSD files are not currently working in Print Tool but TIFF files still are.

The first question is whether it's practical to convert this particular 2010 printer model to monochrome - who's done it and what success have they had with it? I'd want to see evidence before recommending this. The second question before looking at anything else is the DMax you can achieve with a P800, especially in ABW mode - the answer to that one, as far as I'm concerned, is that I've seen none lower from anywhere. Looking visually and statistically at the tonal gradations it produces, they are superb. I think I've seen inkjet B&W prints made in every which way and I believe the P800 stands up well to all of it. So no, I have not tried converting a printer to third-party B&W ink systems. I know many people really love them, and that's fine, but speaking personally I don't see the point. That said, my mind is always open to obviously superior methods, but I'm not feeling compelled to invest in it as an experiment given what we have on the market today. It may be also worth considering a point recently brought to my attention by an industry professional, and sounds plausible - that when you have colour inks available to a B&W printing process, used with good ICC profiles they can help neutralize the effect of non-neutral papers in a way that B&W inks alone cannot do - perhaps useful if you put a high value on apparent neutrality through the tonal range.

[Mark D Segal]

Yes, you can get a higher dMax than the P800, if high dMax is your thing.  Inkjetmall recently released their new HD Photo Black and Ultra HD Matte Black inks that deliver significantly higher dMax than OEM.

It's true that some of the pure carbon monochrome systems that provide the most longevity are a long way from neutral, such as those advocated here from time to time by Paul Roark.  But if neutrality is your thing then the Piezography Pro inkset delivers a neutral tone and moreover allows fine tuning of neutral for the impact of different papers.  Again not the only neutral solution but the quickest one to point to.

From evidence I've read, the extent of difference in Maximum Black between an OEM-inked P800 and the recent Cone inks is small.

I won't argue about adjusting neutrality because I haven't personally used those inks, but I would simply ask how they can do this when they are all monochrome. As far as I know, opponent colours are needed to offset hue biases, but if this were incorrect or not relevant, please let me know - perhaps in another thread.

The basis of my comment about converting an old 2880 to B&W is that relative to the performance of the P800, based on information I've seen (not first-hand experience with non-OEM inks) one may question the extent to which it's worthwhile.

There's been lots of discussion about these options in other threads and Forums, so perhaps let us not further divert this thread OT.

[Ferp]

There's been lots of discussion about these options in other threads and Forums, so perhaps let us not further divert this thread OT.

I have been reluctant to keep this exchange so OT, but you provided OT advice to Kees in passing that raised issues that needed to be explored in that context, as it could have had a bearing on any decision that Kees might make.  I think we can wrap this up here by clarifying a couple of points.

From evidence I've read, the extent of difference in Maximum Black between an OEM-inked P800 and the recent Cone inks is small.

I suspect this information predates the relatively recent arrival of Inkjetmall's HD Photo Black and Ultra HD Matte Black inks, which have changed dMax comparisons considerably.  That said, people don't usually opt for a monochrome inkset for higher dMax but for the tonal transitions.  I assume that's what Kees was interested in, although dMax is now also a consideration.

I would simply ask how they can do this when they are all monochrome.

The Cone Pro Inks contain both warm and cool inks and the user blends them in the RIP software to neutral, or other variations such as split-toning.  There's also an older K7 inkset that comes toned to neutural.  The system developed by Paul Roark has a single cool toner that is used in conjunction with warm carbon inks.

[Mark D Segal]

I have been reluctant to keep this exchange so OT, but you provided OT advice to Kees in passing that raised issues that needed to be explored in that context, as it could have had a bearing on any decision that Kees might make.  I think we can wrap this up here by clarifying a couple of points.
I suspect this information predates the relatively recent arrival of Inkjetmall's HD Photo Black and Ultra HD Matte Black inks, which have changed dMax comparisons considerably.  That said, people don't usually opt for a monochrome inkset for higher dMax but for the tonal transitions.  I assume that's what Kees was interested in, although dMax is now also a consideration.
The Cone Pro Inks contain both warm and cool inks and the user blends them in the RIP software to neutral, or other variations such as split-toning.  There's also an older K7 inkset that comes toned to neutural.  The system developed by Paul Roark has a single cool toner that is used in conjunction with warm carbon inks.

The latest quantified information I've seen that's relevant to this discussion is from Richard Boutwell, B&W Mastery, April 2017. I had that in mind in my comment.

Smoothness of tonal gradation depends of course on how smooth the tonal gradations are in the image file and then how granular/accurately those numbers get printed. This I test for with OEM inks when I do my paper reviews and my latest results, which are more detailed than ones I did several years ago, indicate that with good profiles the Epson driver can perform very well on this criterion with 3 Blacks. I have not compared, however, with dedicated systems as I haven't had a printer to dedicate.

Interesting information on the neutralizing potential.
The point is also made that these conversions have become increasingly difficult to perform with the more recent printer models.
I'll be open-minded pending strong evidence about the extent of value-added converting a 2880 if I also had a P800, but for now I'll put the matter to rest thanking you for raising the matter. 

[Ferp]

The latest quantified information I've seen that's relevant to this discussion is from Richard Boutwell, B&W Mastery, April 2017. I had that in mind in my comment.

From that April 2017 blog post in which Richard Boutwell compared the Original Epson UltraChome MK from the x800-x880, the new HD Matte Black in the P800 and the STS MK (Roark's system) to the new Inkjetmall Ultra HD Matte Black, for the interest of readers I quote the following finding:

"In the two Hahnemühle papers I tested I was able to maintain a Dmax of 1.81 (L* ~12.92) [with the Ultra HD Matte Black] where all the other inks were the best to around a Dmax of about 1.65 (L* ~16.7). The best I was ever able to do with the STS MK was with Museo Portfolio Rag that maxed out at 1.7 (L* ~15.45)."

The P800 MK was the closest ink to the Ultra HD Matte Black when measured in isolation, although still with a noticeable gap, but not so close when used in combination with the other inks.  Previous comments about monochrome inksets being used primarily for reasons other than dMax still apply.

Best wishes to all early adopters of Mojave.  Please let us know how you go.

[Wayne Fox]

An update, I decided the holiday weekend was a good opportunity to do some projects, and decided to upgrade to Mojave now that the 10.14.1 update has been released.  Everything went smoothly and haven’t had any issues ...

... other than I also had issues with color on my p9000 like the OP and had to uninstall and reinstall the drivers to get things back to normal.  Strange because I was using a custom profile, but color was definitely wrong (bluish, more contrast and overall darker). 

A little simpler now for MacOS, just delete the printers from the printer preference pane, navigate to Hard Drive/Library/Printers and toss the entire Epson folder.  Restart, download the drivers and install them.  Everything normal after that.

[dgardn]

I've been struggling for weeks trying to figure out why my 3880 was printing so strangely. Stumbling onto this thread proved to be the fix. Thanks everyone!

David g.

[Tom Montgomery]

I have had an Epson 4900 for several years and was very pleased with the output, which matched what I saw in Lightroom closely enough for my work. Then I replaced the 4900 with a P5000 and immediately noticed that prints were now slightly darker overall, especially noticeable in the shadow details. I was expecting some differences due to the new ink set, but hoped that the canned Epson paper profiles would compensate.

My iMac 27 is calibrated (I1 Display, 100 c/m2), as it was with the 4900; I print only from Lightroom; I am using Mojave but it was the same in High Sierra; the paper profiles displayed in Lightroom all start with "SC-P5000".

I have deleted the printer and re-installed it with no change.

However, if I set the dreaded Print Adjustment slider in Lightroom to Brightness +25 then what comes out of the printer matches extremely closely to, for example, the DigitalDog test print as displayed in Lightroom with no other adjustments made. In both B&W and colour the printer output is what I see on the screen.

Would a custom printer profile for the 2 papers I use (Epson Premium Lustre and Epson Hot Press Bright) correct things so that I can turn off Print Adjustment? Or should I be looking elsewhere?

[Mark D Segal]

Notwithstanding the change of inkset, the bespoke profiles should compensate for colour handling differences between the two printers. The first question I would want to resolve in your situation is whether the canned profiles are performing well enough, and the second whether the printer is laying down the right amounts of ink as guided by the profiles. Have you checked what the prints look like using Printer Colour Management? This may offer a clue, and it only costs a bit of paper and ink. More costly would be to get one custom profile made for the paper that is the worst performing, and see whether a custom profile solves it.

[Tom Montgomery]

[...]  Have you checked what the prints look like using Printer Colour Management?

Good point, Mark. No, I haven't done that test, but I will tomorrow morning.  Thanks for pointing this out.

[digitaldog]

I have had an Epson 4900 for several years and was very pleased with the output, which matched what I saw in Lightroom closely enough for my work. Then I replaced the 4900 with a P5000 and immediately noticed that prints were now slightly darker overall, especially noticeable in the shadow details. I was expecting some differences due to the new ink set, but hoped that the canned Epson paper profiles would compensate.

My iMac 27 is calibrated (I1 Display, 100 c/m2), as it was with the 4900; I print only from Lightroom; I am using Mojave but it was the same in High Sierra; the paper profiles displayed in Lightroom all start with "SC-P5000".

I have deleted the printer and re-installed it with no change.

However, if I set the dreaded Print Adjustment slider in Lightroom to Brightness +25 then what comes out of the printer matches extremely closely to, for example, the DigitalDog test print as displayed in Lightroom with no other adjustments made. In both B&W and colour the printer output is what I see on the screen.

Would a custom printer profile for the 2 papers I use (Epson Premium Lustre and Epson Hot Press Bright) correct things so that I can turn off Print Adjustment? Or should I be looking elsewhere?

Ideally you'd have two display calibrations you can switch on the fly for each, resulting in a visual match. One calibration for say Matt and Glossy paper, even on the same printer may not match especially if the profile's proofing table isn't that good. Profiles have two tables; one for output, one for soft proofing and they should be 'in sync' ideally but that may not be the case and may be one of your issues.

[Tom Montgomery]

Ideally you'd have two display calibrations you can switch on the fly for each, resulting in a visual match.

Andrew, by "display calibrations" I'm guessing that you are referring to the soft proofing tables in the paper profiles (and not monitor calibrations for each paper type).  Would custom profiles be guaranteed to have both output and soft proofing tables in sync?

[digitaldog]

Andrew, by "display calibrations" I'm guessing that you are referring to the soft proofing tables in the paper profiles (and not monitor calibrations for each paper type).  Would custom profiles be guaranteed to have both output and soft proofing tables in sync?

No, I'm speaking of actual differing display calibrations based on the soft proof. But yeah, it's possible a 'better' profile could have a better matching soft proof if again, the two tables are not in sync.
My SpectraView allows differing calibrations in the panel which I can switch on the fly in the software since calibration takes place within the panel. So I can have one calibration for a matt paper, one for a glossy paper where for example, the contrast ratio differs per paper. This takes a lot of the burden off the soft proof table but we still prefer those tables to be (I hate to use the term) 'accurate'.

[Tom Montgomery]

I made 3 prints of this file http://www.inkjetcarts.us/support/file.php?id=73 this morning. In all 3 cases I imported the file to Lr, making no adjustments. The print made with "Printer manages colour" and the print made with Lightroom managing colour (but no Print Adjustment) match with only very subtle differences. Both were darker than the image on my screen in the shadow detail, particularly at the bottom of the circuit board at the top left of the image. The print made with Lightroom managing colour and a +25% Brightness Print Adjustment value brought that shadow detail up to match the screen image.  Note: I'm talking about very subtle differences here. Any of the three prints would be acceptable, in my clients' view.

But I believe my problem is fuzzy thinking.  I have been assuming that a reference image ought to come out of the printer with the same values as the image on the screen. But that surely can't be true - even reference images should require compensation for the paper being printed on, right? 

I think it's worth getting profiles made anyway because of subtle differences elsewhere in the image, if only to damp down my OCD-ness! Andrew: is the Adobe Color Printer Utility still the best way to print targets?  Thanks!

[Mark D Segal]

I made 3 prints of this file http://www.inkjetcarts.us/support/file.php?id=73 this morning. In all 3 cases I imported the file to Lr, making no adjustments. The print made with "Printer manages colour" and the print made with Lightroom managing colour (but no Print Adjustment) match with only very subtle differences. Both were darker than the image on my screen in the shadow detail, particularly at the bottom of the circuit board at the top left of the image. The print made with Lightroom managing colour and a +25% Brightness Print Adjustment value brought that shadow detail up to match the screen image.  Note: I'm talking about very subtle differences here. Any of the three prints would be acceptable, in my clients' view.

But I believe my problem is fuzzy thinking.  I have been assuming that a reference image ought to come out of the printer with the same values as the image on the screen. But that surely can't be true - even reference images should require compensation for the paper being printed on, right? 

I think it's worth getting profiles made anyway because of subtle differences elsewhere in the image, if only to damp down my OCD-ness! Andrew: is the Adobe Color Printer Utility still the best way to print targets?  Thanks!

If you are comparing display to paper images, you should be making the comparison under softproof on the display, so that the display version comes as close as the technology allows to mimicking what comes out of the printer. It will never be a perfect match because of the fundamental difference between transmitted and reflected light, but if the softproofing is working well, they come very close in a well managed system. How are you profiling your display, what display profiling parameters are you using, what ambient light do you work with and view prints with?